OT - I'd vote for this guy at the next election!

Hey Jo!

hehe! Yeah I thought so! Such a simple idea - very clever!

Cheers
Ross

Like establish the Dept of Urine? hehe! Not sure who'd be putting thier hand up for that portfolio - Minister of Urine. haha!

Head of the department would be a real pi$$head eh :)))

they'd have to handle all the information they held securely - wouldn't want any press 'leaks'

Stop takeing the P*I*S*S you lot.
We all know the excess funds would go to the police and the gaols as the bludgeing scum would then take up crime to support their habit

450,000 dole cheats at 400 per week for 52 weeks is $9.36 billion dollars.

Better to save that than try and find it from a "tax cheat" in the "big end of town".

Where does the big end start? Is it $40,000pa, $140,000pa, or $540,000pa

400 what per week?....... and the source of the figure 450,000 dole cheats? You have me fascinated!
Nats.

From The Age (2006 article):

========================================
In 2005, Workforce Participation Minister Peter Dutton claimed that one in five people on welfare was ripping off the system.

There is no credible evidence to back this up, but that wasn't important. The important thing was to get the message out. (The Government did a similar thing in 2002, and announced a major crackdown on dole cheats. A year later, a grand total of one person had been found to be fraudulently claiming benefits.)

========================================

From the ABS website:

Unemployment percentage 2006-2007 = 4.5%

I could be bothered to do the maths accurately, however the numbers are probably more like 200,000 "suspected" cases.

Good to see Gerhardp1 is not one of these cheats, going by his overestimated guess of the current newstart allowances :-)

Andrew

I count single mothers ripping the system as dole cheats. They are not counted as unemployed, as far as I know.

Just my old fashioned view.

And you are correct, Andrew - I have no idea what the dole is and never will. My view is you work, you eat well - you don't work, you lose weight.

Andrew - the numbers fascinate me....especially the 'Unemployment percentage 2006-2007 = 4.5%" - 4.5% of what?

Thanks for the question....i could be wrong. :-) Check out the Excel spreadsheet at 1350.0 - Australian Economic Indicators, Oct 2007.

Second look reveals i might have missed those looking for part-time work, not just full-time (table 7).

Andrew

"And then there are some of the negative gearing loopholes for property and some of the super lurks available to the wealthy to minimize tax etc etc."

So Mr mfrewster what are those loopholes and super lurks available to the "Wealthy" that are not available to every other tax paying Australian you included??

Oh John, I know that legally we are all equal, it’s just that in practice there are a whole raft of lurks that really only useful when you are in the higher tax bracket. Have a chat to a friendly tax accountant and he will explain it all too you, while trying to keep a straight face. Some examples? Take salary sacrifice into super. Only really useful if you are in the high bracket, but if you are, what a great little way that is to invest money and minimize tax. Similarly, negative gearing on investment property. Hardly worth it if you are on a lower income (assuming that you can afford to get a property for investment to begin with) but look at how it reduces your tax bill if you are on a high income! In most countries they won’t let you do this. In Oz, you can not only do it, you can live overseas and claim a trip home each year to “inspect your property.” I wouldn’t object to this if the investment was in new housing so that house stocks were increased, but here if you do it on existing properties which unnaturally skews property prices and helps keep new home buyers out of the market. While you are at it, ask the accountant to show you some of the perks available so that the wealthy can avoid capital gain taxes on their investment properties. He will split his sides sharing this one with you.

Yes I have an accountant and I manage my affairs quite well.

Your post alluded to the fact that the wealthy were able to do something that any other tax paying Australian couldn't and also had the hint within its tone that this was unfair.

Average Australians who are able to manage their financial affairs can and do undertake all of the points you outline, the only difference between a high income earner and a low one is the amount of money each has available to play with at any given time.

Thirty years ago I would have agreed with you. Australia was a much more egalatarian society. One of the interesting features of Australia is the rapidly increasing polarization of the community. The gap between those with and those without has increased very significantly in this time. For the record, I think Labor has been little better than the Libs on this. When I left school, after about three years work an average Australian had a deposit on a house and knew it would be paid off in twenty years, owned a car and the wife stopped working and had kids. You are quite right, the only difference is the disposable income some Australians have. But the system clearly advantages those with the extra disposable income in ways that increase the divide. It would, for example, be easy to change negative gearing provisions so that they were used to create new housing stock rather than driving housing prices up. At the same time as a reducing number of Australians are home owners, an increasing number own more than one home. This isn't just the market forces at work, the system is loaded.

How so?

Lets face it - they will never introduce a urine test, but I fail to see how the amount an unemployed person gets in terms of thier "benefit" should influence whether they're tested or not? I relaise your comment is probably tongue in cheek but I think, that if you're getting a gov't handout then you shouldn't be allowed to spend it on illegal drugs!

Cheers
Scoey!

I don't personally think that they should spend it on drugs etc however where do we draw the line.....alcohol?.......smoking?.......gambling?.......

I'm not sure that the current benefits would buy that much drugs in any case (i have no idea of the going rate....hehe).

I wouldn't call the guy's policy as a holistic approach to the real problems faced by unemployed people.....maybe a bandaid fix, however there is not enough thought gone into the implications to get my vote......i'll stick with the "Australian Marijuana Party" thanks (tic)

Andrew

Yeah I agree - just saying no to the drugs leaves alcohol gambling etc still on the table but I think the illegal stuff should definately be out.

I guess it just gets my goat because I'm struggling to support my girlfriend (not defacto as Centrelink call us) while she goes thru Uni because apparently I earn too much (that's funny!) and should be supporting her! So we get nothing from the Gov't and do our best to keep the basic services connected. Yet the deadbeats I see queuing up across the road at Centrelink when I'm at work, sniffing paint, drinking from paper bags etc hand thier forms in and walk straight down to the RSL.

Oh well, I'll get off my soap box, put away the cheese that went with my whine and get back to work! ;-)

Cheers
Scoey!

Well, if they are unemployed - and if, in the mean time, have become single mothers - it would be a perfect policy fit. Seriously, though, should any workers have to submit to random tests on blood and/or urine as a condition of employment? Can't see politicians accepting it. Surgeons? Priests? TV hosts? Restaurateurs?
Nats.